Please stop homosexual activists and atheists

[Hunt]

You know, there are many organizations in America that discriminate against various religions--specifically, they are OTHER religions. You can't join a Methodist Church if you are a Buddhist--at least not without ceasing to be a Buddhist. And if you're a Methodist, you can't join a Baptist church without getting baptized again--that's discrimination, of course. It doesn't matter that you are a fine, wonderful person--if you don't want to be baptized again, you can't join. Basically, BSA is like that--it's FOR people who believe in God. People who don't believe in God may be fine, moral people, even better than many people who do believe in God--but they simply don't belong in the BSA, any more than they belong in the Baptist church. I can understand that some people don't like this, because they would like to have the benefits of Scouting without having to accept that limitation. People who feel that way about churches have the option of becoming Unitarians, so they can get many of the benefits of church membership without being required to adopt a creed. Merlyn's argument about the BSA getting government benefits is different (and better, really) than simply disagreeing with BSA's position--and I wouldn't squelch him at all--I was just pointing out that in my view it's a waste of time to come here to make that argument, and I continue to think that his most recent thread simply read like gloating.

[Hunt]

You know, there are many organizations in America that discriminate against various religions--specifically, they are OTHER religions. You can't join a Methodist Church if you are a Buddhist--at least not without ceasing to be a Buddhist. And if you're a Methodist, you can't join a Baptist church without getting baptized again--that's discrimination, of course. It doesn't matter that you are a fine, wonderful person--if you don't want to be baptized again, you can't join. Basically, BSA is like that--it's FOR people who believe in God. People who don't believe in God may be fine, moral people, even better than many people who do believe in God--but they simply don't belong in the BSA, any more than they belong in the Baptist church. I can understand that some people don't like this, because they would like to have the benefits of Scouting without having to accept that limitation. People who feel that way about churches have the option of becoming Unitarians, so they can get many of the benefits of church membership without being required to adopt a creed. Merlyn's argument about the BSA getting government benefits is different (and better, really) than simply disagreeing with BSA's position--and I wouldn't squelch him at all--I was just pointing out that in my view it's a waste of time to come here to make that argument, and I continue to think that his most recent thread simply read like gloating.

[tortdog]

>Legislating your personal morality is bending your will around other people's necks and leading your people back into slavery.

 

In this country (and every state), there is no such thing as the legislation of personal morality. There is the legislation of society's morality, which is imposed by the legislature as executed by the executive.

 

Laws are inherently judgments on morality. That's just reality, so I'm not sure what the above comment means (except in a tyrannical form of government).

[Prairie_Scouter]

Regards the original topic, ie, homosexual activists and atheists should just go away...

Why?

 

This forum was created specifically for these kinds of discussions, wasn't it? How interesting would a forum on "Issues and Politics" be if you could only enter if you agreed with everyone. What would a typical thread be then? "Topic: Scouting is Good". Followed by 4 pages of "I agree"?

 

Regards Merlyn,

For the most part, I find his arguments thorough, and firmly stated, but not mean spirited. I can think of a couple of posters who are much more venomous in their posts. Are we to single out Merlyn for his focused, even single-minded, point of view? Should we then single out those who have espoused a philosophy here that basically comes down to "Whatever Scouting does is beyond question" in a similarly focused, even single-minded, point of view?

[LodgeChief]

A good reason why atheists are not admitted into the Boy Scouts of America is because it would be breaking the Scout Law that we have recited once a week for almost a hundred years. A Scout is Reverent. If you do not believe in God or you do not have a God then how could you follow the Scout Law.

As for the homosexuals, one of the points of the Scout Oath is to "Keep myself morally straight". I stand behind the decisions to keep these certain individuals out of the Scouting Program because they are doing things that we are trying to teach our Scouts not to do.

[Prairie_Scouter]

I guess the question, LodgeChief, is "who gets to decide who is morally straight?".

[tortdog]

>who gets to decide who is morally straight?

 

The people who make it a requirement, no?

[OldGreyEagle]

"How interesting would a forum on "Issues and Politics" be if you could only enter if you agreed with everyone. What would a typical thread be then? "Topic: Scouting is Good". Followed by 4 pages of "I agree"? ""

 

Well actually if BobWhite posted Scouting is Good, I know one poster who would try his darnest to disagree and say he loves scouts as well!

 

[dan]

OldGreyEagle

I am going to have to disagre with you.

I think there are at least 3 if not more, posters that would disagree with him. ;(

[johndaigler]

It's funny how we can come back to a conversation a year later without missing a beat!

 

Lodge Chief, it wouldn't take much vision-bending to argue that many Atheists are Reverent of Nature and Science and Art and Mathematics and the Human Machine and get that same awestruck feeling ya get when you've been climbing for 4 hours and reach the mountain crest from where you can see the prettiest parts of 3 states. Anyone standing in that place feels Reverence. IMHO, they just give God another name, but then again so does most of the planet.

 

 

I'm neither an Atheist nor a homosexual, but I don't see the need for angst when we consider them. I don't fear for my children if they hang around atheists or homosexuals -- the common cold is more contagious than either of those dreaded conditions. It's not like they're smokers, or anything! If there were Local COs who started Units that allowed homosexuals and atheists, it wouldn't impact me, or my sons. I might have to choose a different Unit to join, and the organizationa as a whole might lose 10%of members who "couldn't live with the change". IMHO, the influx of new members would more than offset that loss - numerically. Obviously, the conflict isn't about membership numbers, don't misread me. I'm not saying I'd prefer one type of Scout over another. I'm saying there could be, if we wanted, room for additional types of Scouts.

 

It's an old argument, but I'm still on Hunt's Local Option Bandwagon.

 

It's another old argument, but I don't think you could find 4 posters who disagree with what B:)b White says. They just won't like the way he says it. It's tough to disagree with truth, but style . . .

 

jd

[Torveaux]

So Merlyn,

 

If atheism is a religion (as you seem to be saying) then by removing other religions from government is exactly what you claim to be fighting against! What you are advocating is tantamount to government endorsement of the religion of atheism.

 

You don't get to have it both ways. I have quite a few atheist acquaintences, and they all try to avoid being considered a religion. The reason is simple, if atheism is a religion (I believe that it meets the requirements as well), then the ACLU argument that seeks to exclude other religions from government places is disengenuous at best and quite likely fraudulent.

 

I also gather from the tone of your posts that even if Scouting had no ties to the government whatsoever, you would still oppose the existence of the organization. You would oppose Scouts marching in parades, because you shouldn't have to see kids that have values. You would oppose the term 'Eagle' scout because it reflects on the national symbol.

 

Maybe if you explored religion a bit more you would not be so bitter.

[Prairie_Scouter]

OGE,

Can't imagine who you might be referring to!

 

 

Tortdog,

So, that would make the definition of "morally straight" kind of a subjective thing, right?

[dan]

johndaigler

10%? I think that is the number that would stay.

 

It's tough to disagree with truth, but style . . .

 

Did you really mean to say

 

It's tough to disagree with truth, with style?

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Torveaux writes:

So Merlyn,

 

If atheism is a religion (as you seem to be saying) then by removing other religions from government is exactly what you claim to be fighting against! What you are advocating is tantamount to government endorsement of the religion of atheism.

 

Nope.

 

First of all, I DON'T say atheism is a religion; in fact, I say that atheism is NOT a religion, just as theism is not a religion. Most religions have some kind of theism as a tenet of that religion, and there are a few religions, like the Raelians, that have atheism as a tenet of that religion, but atheism (and theism) per se are not religions.

 

Having said that, the government shouldn't promote atheism OR theism.

 

Removing religious references from the government actually makes it NEUTRAL on the subject of religion; if e.g. a public schoolteacher teaches that gravity makes planets orbit the sun, the teacher is not saying anything about gods, and is NOT promoting atheism OR theism (though someone who thinks angels move the planets, as many people used to, might consider that teacher to be promoting atheism, since it conflicts with their theistic beliefs).

 

Many theists claim that removing government promotion of theism is somehow promoting atheism - it isn't, it's being neutral.

 

The atheist counterpart to "under god" in the pledge would be to CHANGE it to "under no gods" or something similar - removing the phrase and restoring the pledge to its pre-1954 wording returns it to the religiously neutral version that it was for decades.

 

The atheist counterpart to "in god we trust" on currency would be to CHANGE it to "in no gods we trust" or something similar - removing the phrase would restore currency to being religiously neutral, like buffalo-head nickels.

 

The atheist counterpart to having the ten commandments (and allowing no others) on courthouse lawns would be to CHANGE it to "no gods, no masters" or something similar - removing such monuments (or allowing ALL monuments on an equal basis as a public forum) would restore courthouse lawns to being religiously neutral.

 

I think it's very telling that you see neutrality as promoting atheism.

 

You don't get to have it both ways.

 

I'm not. I'm against the government promoting atheism, too. Like that ever happens.

 

I have quite a few atheist acquaintences, and they all try to avoid being considered a religion. The reason is simple, if atheism is a religion (I believe that it meets the requirements as well), then the ACLU argument that seeks to exclude other religions from government places is disengenuous at best and quite likely fraudulent.

 

Wrong. Again, you aren't distinguishing between being neutral vs. promoting atheism. The ACLU argues for the government to be neutral - the fact that you consider that to be promotion of atheism is your problem.

 

I also gather from the tone of your posts that even if Scouting had no ties to the government whatsoever, you would still oppose the existence of the organization.

 

Yes; the BSA, as it officially exists now, denegrates atheists.

 

You would oppose Scouts marching in parades, because you shouldn't have to see kids that have values. You would oppose the term 'Eagle' scout because it reflects on the national symbol.

 

While the BSA has the right to do such things, I have the right to criticize them, too.

 

Maybe if you explored religion a bit more you would not be so bitter.

 

And maybe if you explored critical thinking a bit more, you would not mistake religious neutrality for promoting atheism.

 

It isn't difficult to find hypocrisy in the BSA. For example, the 20 subcamps in the Jamboree are named after 20 living famous explorers:

 

http://www.scouting.org/jamboree/resources/subcamps/index.html

 

Notice that subcamp 12 is named after James D. Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA (no, not Douglas Adams - this time I'm referring to deoxyribose nucleic acid).

 

Dr. Watson is a very outspoken atheist; here are some quotes:

 

"The luckiest thing that ever happened to me was that my father didn't believe in God, and so he had no hang-ups about souls. I see ourselves as products of evolution, which itself is a great mystery."

 

"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles."

 

"I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say, "Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose," but I'm anticipating a good lunch."

 

 

From a visit to Youngstown University:

http://www.vindy.com/local%5Fnews/279051929445300.php

 

...

More than 200 students listened to Watson as he told them he is a "total believer in evolution" and feels the Bible is "just not right" in the face of science.

 

"The easiest way to believe in the theory of intelligent design is to never go to school," he said. He also confessed that he does not believe in a soul or anything divine.

 

"So you don't believe in God?" one student asked.

 

"Oh, no. Absolutely not," the scientist answered.

 

"The biggest advantage to believing in God is you don't have to understand anything, no physics, no biology," he added. "I wanted to understand."

...

 

 

You might want to consider how the BSA could simultaneously honor Dr. Watson as a great explorer, yet they would refuse him membership. It's like a Restricted club honoring Albert Einstein while refusing Jews membership. It is, as DNA* might say, vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly hypocritical.

 

*Douglas Adams

[packsaddle]

Watson is an interesting choice for an example. I guess his name recognition makes it a good choice. However, although he seems to have been right about many things in science, his speech is a double-edged sword - he tends to say whatever he feels like. And sometimes it could have been said in a less inflamatory manner.

Finally, regarding his suitability for a hypothetical application to BSA, I wish there could be some way to extract an apology from him for his (and Crick's) somewhat questionable interaction with Franklin. I have great sympathy for her in that story.